¶1 The .plaintiffs in this case claim the specific execution of a contract, which they state was entered into by the defendant Greenlee, for the conveyance of the lots specified in the hill, for a valuable consideration. It may be taken for granted that Greenlee signed a written contract for that purpose. But the fact appears to be well established by the depositions taken in the case, that at the time when he signed it he was intoxicated, and not capable of making a contract; that the jdaintiff Whitesides was not only conusant of his situation, but was instrumental in bringing it about. It is stated in the bill that the purchase was made upon a valuable consideration, but it is not stated what that consideration was, nor is any evidence offered, that Whitesides ever paid any part of it, nor is it even intimated of what value, the lots were.
¶2 From this short statement of the case, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for a specific execution of the contract; not because there are merits and equity on the side of the defendant, but because the plaintiff White-sides has been guilty of a fraud in dealing unfairly with a helpless man, in procuring such contract to be entered into. He is at liberty to avail himself of any remedy the law will give him. But the bill must be dismissed with costs,
¶3 Per, Curiam. — Bin. dismissed.